Global Free Energy Blog

Someone emailed this to me –>

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

If you are working on the latest and greatest awesome climate model, Decadal Climate Prediction System (DePreSys), then please contact me. It seems great & promising. The amount of cpu power required to run that model is massive, right? DePreSys, an advanced model that takes into every know consideration predicts the global warming *trend* will get far worse than it is.

Here is the global warming data that has been publicly available since the beginning of 1850’s. You can’t hide that kind of data.

Click to enlarge image

The following graph shows the 5 year average, and the yearly average. This is great data that has been in public hands beginning in the mid 1800’s. You can’t hide that kind of data.

Click to enlarge image

Important article here just published today,

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100110/OPINION/1100347/-1/NEWSMAP

That’s science, not claims. Global warming is still here, and as stated many times it caused wicked weather. Global warming means more water molecules evaporate, and such molecules must collect and fall somewhere. During the winters it causes massive snow storms. A big year in snow storms does *not* mean global cooling. Not by a long shot. Global warming is alive & well.

Also, lets not forget that global temperature fluctuations have always exists. We can see in the graphs going back to the mid 1800’s that the global temperature has significant fluctuations that during those periods one might think there’s global cooling, but nothing could be further from the truth. The global warming trend is still here. You cannot take a few years average and see the trend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus
“Over 97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation is a significant contributing factor to global climate change[1]“

Credible research scientists such as Gavin Schmidt with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies are saying the recent global warming email incident has nothing to do with disproving global warming. Quote from Gavin Schmidt at NASA, “There’s nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax”

Unscientific anti global warmest say the over the past year the planet is now cooling. That falls under the bad science category because it is impossible to obtain a global warming trend from averaging global temperatures from a few years, and the reason is due to global temperature fluctuations. Global temperatures have always fluctuated by significant amounts. Real scientists find the trend from decades of global temperatures, which clearly shows the global warming trend.

Exxon Mobil (Big Oil) has been caught red handed paying millions of dollars to people and groups who are against global warming. This is documented at WikiPedia, which contains the references. Please see the links at the bottom of this blog under “Big Oil caught red handed” for details.

Global Warming is a scientific fact, but has become so political that conservatives are now out right lying. One example of bad science is to even suggest that a few years worth of global temperature averages can show a global warming trend. That is impossible because of temperature fluctuations. It is a known fact that global temperatures fluctuation by a great amount. In order to properly analyze the data from global temperatures one needs to take an average spanning at least a decade. Here is the data plot of global temperatures, human population, and CO2 spanning back to 1850 –>

Click to enlarge

The data shows a correlation between the industrial age and the rise in global temperature.

Some people suggest (without providing any data) that global warming is due to the Sun. That is not true.  The data of solar irradiance shows a lack of correlation between global warming and solar irradiance.

Some people falsely suggest most scientists do not believe in global warming. That is the complete opposite of the truth. This lie started with Noah E. Robinson, a faculty member of OISM, which circulated the Oregon Petition against global warming. OISM is headed by Dr. Arthur B. Robinson who lectures on global warming skepticism at the Heartland Institute, a conservative/libertarian free-market think tank that often funds global warming-skeptical research and is funded in part by ExxonMobil, a petroleum company.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

The petition goes on the say, 31,000 American scientists opposed, on scientific grounds, to the hypothesis of “human-caused global warming”  Key word is “Human-caused.”  Even this petition is not about if global warming is real, but if humanity is the cause. The data is overwhelming that global warming is real. It’s getting interesting folks, as the opposing sources lead to Big Oil.

I would suggest objective people read what this anti global warming petition is,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Petition_Project

Pretty sad how these conservatives / anti global warmest are out right lying to the public. They were caught red handed. Their petition is fraudulent.

So just how many scientists believe global warming is real? Nearly 100%. They know for fact global warming is real, but the real question is how many scientists believe humanity is the cause of global warming.  Here is a WikiPedia quote, with references,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus
“Over 97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation is a significant contributing factor to global climate change[1]“

The following WikiPedia page starts off with,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus

“The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation. Environmental organizations, many governmental reports, and the non-U.S. media agree on this virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused global warming, although there is less agreement on the specific consequences of this warming.”
Here are some of the references for only the above statement,
^ “Global Warning “. Washington Post. 5 February 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/04/AR2007020400953.html . Retrieved 2007-04-12.
^ Barker, Scott (October 25, 2003). “Scientists agree on climatic change, differ on severity “. Knoxville News Sentinel. http://www.csm.ornl.gov/PR/NS-10-25-03.html . Retrieved 2007-04-12.
^ “A guide to facts and fictions about climate change “. Royal Society. March 2005. http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630 . Retrieved 2007-11-18.  “”However, the overwhelming majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points”"
^ “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change “. Science Magazine. December 2004. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 . Retrieved 2008-01-04.

Recently some people are under the false impression that the recent global warming email incident some how magically means there’s no global warming. Credible research scientists such as Gavin Schmidt with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies are saying these emails have nothing to do with disproving global warming, quote, “There’s nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax”

Also see a few of my previous posts on the topic, including how Big Oil has been caught numerous times paying people to out right lie about Global Warming:

Motives to hush Global Warming
http://globalfreeenergy.info/2009/11/25/motives-to-hush-global-warming/

More anti global warming fiction
http://globalfreeenergy.info/2009/11/28/more-anti-global-warming-fiction/

Global warming & poor science
http://globalfreeenergy.info/2009/11/28/global-warming-poor-science/

Big Oil caught red handed:

http://globalfreeenergy.info/2009/12/03/oil-ties-to-anti-global-warming-4/

http://globalfreeenergy.info/2009/12/03/oil-ties-to-anti-global-warming/

Wow, the more I dive into this, the more “oil” pops into the picture. I’ll never buy gas from Exxon again. Here are a few quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

Quotes, the numbers in [] are the wikipedia references,

“A survey carried out by the Royal Society found that in 2005 ExxonMobil distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society said “misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence”.[30]“

^“The British Royal Society conducted a survey that found ExxonMobil had given US$ 2.9 million to American groups that “misinformed the public about climate change,” 39 of which “misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence”.^[3][42] In 2006, the British Royal Society issued a demand that ExxonMobil withdraw funding for climate change denial. The letter, which was leaked to the media, drew criticism, notably from Timothy Ball and others, who argued the society attempted to “politicize the private funding of science and to censor scientific debate.”[43]“

“Cooney reportedly removed an entire section on climate in one report, whereupon an oil lobbyist sent him a fax saying “You are doing a great job.”[5]“

“Some denials and disinformation campaigns have been promoted by individuals or groups that are funded by special interest groups with a financial interest in misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change^[1], particularly those with ties to companies like ExxonMobil or the energy lobby.^[2][3][4] “

“Then-Vice President Dick Cheney’s connections to the Energy Lobby, and to ExxonMobil in particular, have fueled speculation that his characterization of climate change science is linked to the “denial industry.”^[37] In 2000, Cheney’s Energy Task Force, officially known as the National Energy Policy Development Group, invited the executives of various major oil companies, including Exxon, Conoco, BP, and Royal Dutch Shell, to consult with the White House regarding the development of a national energy policy, although this was initially denied by the participating companies.^[38] An Exxon lobbyist – among others – was thanked by the U.S. Undersecretary of Global Affairs for Exxon’s role in convincing President Bush to reject the Kyoto accords. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists:  In her talking points for a 2001 meeting with a group that included ExxonMobil lobbyist Randy Randol (uncove#ff9999 through a Freedom of Information Act request), U.S. Undersecretary for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky thanked the group for their input on global warming policy, noting, ‘POTUS [the president of the United States] rejected Kyoto, in part, based on input from you.�Global Climate Coalition, according to a leaked 1991 “strategy memo,” set out not to gather data and test explanations, but to influence public perception of climate change science and “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact.”^[14] The strategy was criticized as misrepresenting science in a 2006 Royal Society letter to ExxonMobil expressing disappointment that a recent industry publication “leaves readers with such an inaccurate and misleading impression of the evidence on the causes of climate change … documented in the scientific literature.”[15]“

“The United Kingdom identified the issue of climate change denial as a major topic on its agenda while chair of the G8 group of wealthy countries in 2005.^[11]“

^“Several think tanks funded by Exxon or, later, ExxonMobil, to contest climate change have also reputedly received funding from Philip Morris such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, the Reason Foundation, George Mason University’s Law and Economics Center, and the Independent Institute.^[27]“

^“Cooney announced his resignation two days after the story of his tampering with scientific reports broke.^[34] A few days later it was announced that Cooney would take up a position with ExxonMobil.^[35]“

I would suggest objective people read what this anti global warming petition is,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Petition_Project

Pretty sad how far on a limb these anti global warming people will go.

Noah E. Robinson is on the faculty of OISM, which circulated the Oregon Petition, a petition” against global warming. OISM is headed by Dr. Arthur B. Robinson who lectures on global warming skepticism at the Heartland Institute, a conservative/libertarian free-market think tank that often funds global warming-skeptical research and is funded in part by ExxonMobil, a petroleum company.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

It goes on the say, “31,000 American scientists opposed, on scientific grounds, to the hypothesis of “human-caused global warming”  Key word is “Human-caused.”  This is not about if global warming is real. The data is overwhelming that global warming is real. The temperatures are increasing. This is about what’s causing it.

It’s getting interesting in here folks. Big oil.

The Himalayan Mountains glaciers are not growing.

Quote from WikiPedia on the Himalayan Mountains,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayan_Mountains#Glaciers_and_river_systems
“In recent years scientists have monitored a notable increase in the rate of glacier retreat across the region as a result of global climate change.[5] Although the effect of this won’t be known for many years it potentially could mean disaster for the hundreds of millions of people who rely on the glaciers to feed the rivers of northern India during the dry seasons.[6] “”According to a UN climate report, the Himalayan glaciers that are the sources of Asia’s biggest rivers could disappear by 2035 as temperatures rise and India, Tibet, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Myanmar could experience floods followed by droughts in coming decades.[7]“

Quote from WikiPedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayan_Mountains#Impact_on_climate
“To complicate matters, temperatures are rising more rapidly here than the global average. In Nepal the temperature has risen with 0.6 degree over the last decade, whereas the global warming has been around 0.7 over the last hundred years.[8]“

Vanishing Himalayan Glaciers Threaten a Billion
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/42387/story.htm

Glaciers melting at alarming speed (The Tibetan and Xinjiang glaciers)
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90781/90879/6222327.html

Out of tens  of thousands of scientists there will always be a lot of bad scientists. We can find quotes from bad scientists that actually say there’s no global warming in the data. What’s dangerous about such statements, scientifically speaking, is that this scientist can’t just *say* there was no global warming found in the data. A scientist presents *data* to back up his or her claim.

Also, the scientist needs to be specific. Is he or she talking about the data for the past few years or past 35 years? When considering global warming, we need to consider data spanning decades due to significant fluctuations. A few years of data by itself is meaningless. The global temperature is not going to increase at some fixed temperature every year. The fluctuations are far greater than the steady rise in temperature each year ->

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png

Please take a look at that plot, and take special notice to the fluctuations. It’s really bad science to even suggest that it means something if global warming is down, even for 5 years in a row. Take a look at that graph again, and you’ll see relatively long streaks of global cooling, but then take a look at the entire graph going back 35 years and the pattern begins to become clear. Any scientist who has the nerve to suggest there’s no global warming because of the past two years is not being objective. That’s called poor science.

As you can see in the graph, it takes decades to see the global warming pattern.

I’ll side with Gavin Schmidt at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies on this that the email hacks offer no proof what so ever that global warming is not real. Gavin Schmidt just publicly said, “There’s nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax”

A few replies to someone who has made false statements on the topic of Global Warming,

The earth has had heating and cooling periods through out it’s history.  Funny that the real data shows a cooling since the industrial revolution of some 1.01 degrees.

The funny thing is that anyone can make a claim on a forum, but fortunately WikiPedia requires valid references for claims, and according the WikiPedia there is a clear global warming trend,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png

and the above page graph is also shown in the WikiPedia main page on “Global Warming” –>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

I’ll address your other *claims* in further posts.

Also, Polar Bears do not drown, they can swim for over 80 miles so that bear in the water in Al’s video did not drown.

That’s misrepresenting the truth. The video clearly shows a *baby* polar bear being left by the mother due to the melting.

Can you please clearly state the glaciers in totality are not melting?

Paul

Quote

Also, CO2 is not a poison gas as the US EPA now says it is.

Please show a valid reference as WikiPedia requires for the sake of being scientific.

Paul

Quote

Al Gore’s, and others, “documentaries” showing the glaciers calving as evidence of global warming.  Funny thing about this is that glaciers do calve BUT only when they are advancing due to a cooling trend as in a coming ice age.  Glaciers do NOT calve when they melt, they just melt.  This is simple earth science that anyone who can read can find out for themselves.

Are you trying to say that glaciers are not retreating and thinning? That is simply not true. Quote from WikiPedia,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Glacier_Mass_Balance.png

“This figure shows the average rate of thickness change in mountain glaciers around the world. This information, known as the glaciological mass balance, is found by measuring the annual snow accumulation and subtracting surface ablation driven by melting, sublimation, or wind erosion. These measurements do not account for thinning associated with iceberg calving, flow related thinning, or subglacial erosion. All values are corrected for variations in snow and firn density and expressed in meters of water equivalent (Dyurgerov 2002).

Measurements are shown as both the annual average thickness change and the accumulated change during the fifty years of measurements presented. Years with a net increase in glacier thickness are plotted upwards and in red; years with a net decrease in glacier thickness (i.e. positive thinning) are plotted downward and in blue. Only three years in the last 50 have experienced thickening in the average.

Systematic measurements of glacier thinning began in the 1940s, but fewer than 15 sites had been measured each year until the late 1950s. Since then more than 100 sites have contributed to the average in some years (Dyurgerov 2002, Dyurgerov and Meier 2005). Error bars indicate the standard error in the mean.

Other observations, based on glacier length records, suggest that glacier retreat has occurred nearly continuously since the early 1800s and the end of the little ice age, but variations in rate have occurred, including a significant acceleration during the twentieth century that is believed to have been a response to global warming (Oerlemans 2005).

Data
These measurements are described in Dyurgerov (2002), updated in Dyurgerov and Meier (2005), and archived at the World Glacier Monitoring Service at the National Snow and Ice Data Center. [1]
[2] (ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/NOAA/G10002/)”

Quote

We do need the truth and all you have to do is read a little bit on your own to see that this is nothing more than a world wide scam in a very large power grab.

You’ve made a lot of false claims that would never stand at WikiPedia due to the strict WikiPedia policy of requiring facts & valid references. Sir, I believe you have it backwards. The motive is to hush the facts about Global Warming for the sake of the economy, and that it is a sick act. To actually place ones wallet ($$$) & luxuries over all of the other beautiful species & life on this planet is very sad.

Paul

Quote

A video documentary team was aboard a cruise ship last week on a cruise down in the south pacific waters to document the terrors of global warming.  Well, that cruise ship got stuck in the frozen sea and, they said it will take about a week or more for icebreakers to set them free again.  Also note that this is the summer time down there.  Gee, I hate that for them.

No reply necessary since you made no claim. Your humor on their misfortune is noted.

Paul